Transesophageal Echocardiographic Assessment in Patients with Severe Respiratory Distress due to COVID-19 in the Prone Position: A Feasibility Study.

Background and aim: Our aim was to assess the feasibility, safety, and utility of implementing transesophageal echocardiographic screening in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) and in prone position (PP). Methods: Prospective observational study performed in an intensive care unit; patients 18 years, with ARDS, invasive MV, in PP were included. A total of 87 patients were included. Results: There was no need to change ventilator settings, hemodynamic support, or any difficulties with the insertion of the ultrasonographic probe. Mean duration of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was 20 minutes. No displacement of the orotracheal tube, vomiting, or gastrointestinal bleeding was observed. Frequent complication was displacement of the nasogastric tube in 41 (47%) patients. Severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction was detected in 21 (24%) patients and acute cor pulmonale was diagnosed in 36 (41%) patients. Conclusion: Our results show the importance of assessing RV function during the course of severe respiratory distress and the value of TEE for hemodynamic assessment in PP. How to cite this article: Sosa FA, Wehit J, Merlo P, Matarrese A, Tort B, Roberti JE, et al. Transesophageal Echocardiographic Assessment in Patients with Severe Respiratory Distress due to COVID-19 in the Prone Position: A Feasibility Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(2):132-134.

Impact of exposure time in awake prone positioning on clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal oxygen: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (ARF), awake prone positioning (AW-PP) reduces the need for intubation in patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, the effects of different exposure times on clinical outcomes remain unclear. We evaluated the effect of AW-PP on the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19-related ARF treated with HFNO and analyzed the effects of different exposure times to AW-PP. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study in six ICUs of 6 centers in Argentine consecutively included patients > 18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19-related ARF requiring HFNO from June 2020 to January 2021. In the primary analysis, the main exposure was awake prone positioning for at least 6 h/day, compared to non-prone positioning (NON-PP). In the sensitivity analysis, exposure was based on the number of hours receiving AW-PP. Inverse probability weighting-propensity score (IPW-PS) was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI); and the secondary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 580 patients were screened and 335 were included; 187 (56%) tolerated AW-PP for [median (p25-75)] 12 (9-16) h/day and 148 (44%) served as controls. The IPW-propensity analysis showed standardized differences < 0.1 in all the variables assessed. After adjusting for other confounders, the OR (95% CI) for ETI in the AW-PP group was 0.36 (0.2-0.7), with a progressive reduction in OR as the exposure to AW-PP increased. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for hospital mortality in the AW-PP group ≥ 6 h/day was 0.47 (0.19-1.31). The exposure to prone positioning ≥ 8 h/d resulted in a further reduction in OR [0.37 (0.17-0.8)]. CONCLUSION: In the study population, AW-PP for ≥ 6 h/day reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation, and exposure ≥ 8 h/d reduced the risk of hospital mortality.

Lung ultrasound as a predictor of mortality of patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of lung ultrasound to determine short-term outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: This is a Prospective, observational study. Between July and November 2020, 59 patients were included and underwent at least two LUS assessments using LUS score (range 0-42) on day of admission, day 5th, and 10th of admission. RESULTS: Age was 66.5±15 years, APACHE II was 8.3±3.9, 12 (20%) patients had malignancy, 46 (78%) patients had a non-invasive ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula and 38 (64%) patients required mechanical ventilation. The median stay in ICU was 12 days (IQR 8.5-20.5 days). ICU or hospital mortality was 54%. On admission, the LUS score was 20.8±6.1; on day 5th and day 10th of admission, scores were 27.6±5.5 and 29.4±5.3, respectively (P=0.007). As clinical condition deteriorated the LUS score increased, with a positive correlation of 0.52, P <0.001. Patients with worse LUS on day 5th versus better score had a mortality of 76% versus 33% (OR 6.29, 95%CI 2.01-19.65, p. 0.003); a similar difference was observed on day 10. LUS score of 5th day of admission had an area under the curve of 0.80, best cut-point of 27, sensitivity and specificity of 0.75 and 0.78 respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings position LUS as a simple and reproducible method to predict the course of COVID-19 patients.